gameofthronesfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Rape
Major revision Hey, I just started drastically rewriting the page due to several criticisms about length/structure. I blanked this talk page to start over along with this new version (anyone who wants to reiterate earlier points which are still relevant just copy-paste them back again). Clean start. The new plan is this: Basic intro description (this looks okay to me). Instead of having three subsections on "in real life", "in the books", and "in the TV series vs in the books", it now has two major subsections: "in the books" and "in the TV series vs in the books" ---- and the "in the books" section now has three broad subsections: *1 - The original "in the books" section (with some trimming) basically a long quote from GRRM about it, *2 - a significantly shortened version of the original "in real life" section, to put Martin's comments in context, then *3 - First Night. The First Night section is unchanged -- it's comparing the books with real life, and it's relevant in the sense that the TV series notably omitted it. It made more sense to put it as a subsection here, comparing it with real life, than in the general list of TV series vs books. I've looked over the "TV series vs books" section and I'm also satisfied, though it is long, I think it is merited. But I'm open to suggestions on trimming it. Any thoughts or other refinements that should be made? Anyone think all or part of it are good as they are?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:45, August 27, 2015 (UTC) I would inverse the order, as it is in the rest of the wiki and as Gonzalo has suggested for the Gender and Sexuality article (first GoT, then Books, and finally real life). Personally, I'd also merge "real life" with the other sections, comparing GoT/ASOIAF to real life, instead of having it as a distinct section, but I'm aware that'd be a lot of work. Please, don't bold stuff for no (apparent) reason, like you did in the reactions to Sansa; you stressed a particular negative reaction —why not others, whether they are negative or positive? I'm gonna guess it was a mistake. I'd also encourage you to use —or at least by inspired by the language of— the version I did of your Jaime/Cersei sex scene article, both for the article itself and this shortened version. It does away with subjective qualitative considerations such as "baffling", without which I believe the text is more appropriate (and more convincing.) In that particular example, instead of stressing your opinion that the choice is baffling ("What made this all the more baffling is that the sexual encounter between Jaime and Cersei in this scene in the books is presented as consensual"), it focuses on how controversial it was publicly, for many people, not just you ("Even more polemically, the same sexual encounter in the books is usually interpreted as consensual."). It's also shorter, more condensed and synthesized, without losing any relevant information. Pay particular attention, if you please, to the kind of language used; it reflects our job as documentarians and analyzers of GoT and this controversy in particular —Though the conclusion is the same, it's arrived at without the use of any judgemental/subjective/personal language or logic. It's mostly your own words; it simply has fewer qualitative adjectives, and less repetition in general. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 12:34, August 27, 2015 (UTC) Well, Gonzalo84 already just did a once-over of the Jaime/Cersei article taking out some of the more critical language ("poor editing" became "unusual editing" etc.). So I cut down the Jaime/Cersei thing here to indeed try to be less aggressive. I would specifically keep the word "baffling"....ah, might as well substitute in "confusing". ...boldings from the Sansa section will be removed, yeah. Actually I did merge the "in real life" section: now there's just an "in the books" and "in the TV series" section. Right after the subsection of a quote from Martin saying "I tried to make this like real life", I then made a separate subsection co-equal to it saying "Martin wanted it to be like the real-life Middle Ages, and indeed this is what it was like" ...etc. More generally I'm worried about some of the "in the TV series" parts being kind of long -- I just cut down the Jaime/Cersei part to be more of a stub linking to the main page. Oh btw your own writeup of Jaime/Cersei was very helpful -- ultimately I realized my original version was absurdly long and gutted it even more than your version (down from about 24 pages to around 12 pages). I'm worried if the Sansa/Ramsay section is too long and should just link to the episode article page's subsection....BUT it was so controversial that most people reading a page on "Rape in the TV series" would assume it would be written about on that page itself. Thanks for the input, I'll tinker with this some more...--The Dragon Demands (talk) 14:40, August 27, 2015 (UTC) Okay I reversed the order and changed some wordings. I took out the more subjective boldings (I kept in a few that are just important facts to make it easier to read, i.e. "Benioff and Weiss gave a response about this in Entertainment Weekly" or "Fundamentally we're not sure what happens to Sansa in the next unpublished novel" etc.) ...overall I'm satisfied with every section of this...except for how long the Ramsay/Sansa section is. Other than the Ramsay/Sansa section, any changes need to be made to the rest of it?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:12, August 27, 2015 (UTC) Looks much better to me, structurally speaking. I'll give it an in-depth read later, but if you said you wrote out the more subjective language, I'd say it's well done now.—ArticXiongmao (talk) 15:26, August 27, 2015 (UTC) I think I removed what was too subjective. But what is subjective is...itself subjective. Well give it a thorough read and tell me if you have other objections (and again, the Ramsay/Sansa subsection is a whole separate issue - I mean are there any problems with the other sections before moving on to Ramsay/Sansa?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 15:35, August 27, 2015 (UTC) By my standards the page is done now. I'm a bit wary of copy-pasting in from the episode article all of the critic comments about Sansa/Ramsay, it is a bit long...but it was one of the biggest changes in the show to date, and everyone was talking about it, so I think it would be remiss not to talk about the reaction -- though it has a balance of reactions on other side. Yes this makes it longer but also more balanced. So does anyone else think anything should be changed in this article? Or is it officially done? As it is a sensitive article I plan to just keep it permanently protected/locked (though if regular editors request, as with other articles, it can be briefly add something upon request on the Talk page, or upon request lock for a day to get something else done - this thing is a magnet for vandals, etc., better to keep it protected).--The Dragon Demands (talk) 21:37, August 31, 2015 (UTC) If you want to be all encompassing you may wish to mention that Gared Tuttle's sister was raped by Bolton and Whitehill men, that the ironborn specifically often rape when they pillage (as seen in Royland Degore's family) and take salt wives. Besides the issues with the Sansa/Ramsay section. That seems to be all. -InGen Nate Kenny (talk) 21:48, August 31, 2015 (UTC) It's actually pretty great now. And makes for lighter reading, which is nice! The sections have been reversed, the "middle ages" section has been merged into the rest of the text, Just one thing: Though funny, the "Vulcan death grip" reference reads quite out of place. Oh, and the picture in that section already explains the "fun trivia" that Royce was in Braveheart; it really doesn't need its own paragraph, as it kinda derails the point you're making. But anyway, other than those two details, this has ended up being quite good. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:03, August 31, 2015 (UTC) ...yeah, I removed the Vulcan Death Grip thing. You have to understand: around the medieval history department at school, mentioning "First Night" results in giggling and eyerolling, ...like actual hackers watching the film Hackers and its nonsensical depiction of what actual hacking is like. As a scifi and fantasy fan, also, calling something "as real as a Vulcan Death Grip" is a shockingly deep insult. But I realize now that a general reading audience wouldn't know this, and now I'm worried that someone would think I was being flippant about rape (I wasn't, I was making fun of the otherwise great film Braveheart...starring James Cosmo!) but yeah, it was better to remove it. Ah I'll leave the cast note in, it's not a full paragraph just a line or two. So the page is going to be "active" now.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:43, September 1, 2015 (UTC) " in the same episode that Littlefinger and Sansa arrive at Winterfell and meet the Boltons ("High Sparrow") Ramsay had recently flayed alive Lord Cerwyn, along with Cerwyn's wife and brother, and then prominently left the flayed corpses on public display in the castle courtyard. How Littlefinger would fail to notice this is unclear." I admit I don't get this at all. Time passes between scenes, you know? Roose chastizes Ramsay for his actions (and in later scenes the corpses aren't there, so it worked), and then we jump-cut to Sansa arriving. Doesn't mean it happened immediately after. When Sansa and Littlefinger arrive, the corpses aren't there. "Why didn't Littlefinger notice the corpses?" Well... because they weren't there and he isn't psychic. —--ArticXiongmao (talk) 20:39, September 1, 2015 (UTC) Meryn Trant : What the books ''did not include, however, was an apparently random scene of Raff brutally '''beating child prostitutes with a stick' the way that Meryn does in this episode - apparently to test their pain tolerance when he was selecting them (or for outright sadism, it is unclear). This aspect of the scene was entirely an invention of the TV series - '''as if the audience needed to be reminded that Meryn is a villain', even though in his death scene itself Arya cries out that she is killing him because he betrayed her father and killed Syrio Forel. It would also be difficult for audiences to forget Meryn Trant, given that at the end of Season 5 he was one of only 16 cast members (out of a sprawling cast) who had been introduced in Season 1, and reappeared in every single subsequent TV season (including when he prominently beat and stripped Sansa at Joffrey's command in front of the royal court).'' Come on, now. Tone it down. The first few bolded parts are just unacceptable. The last bolded sections are just an assumption; you don't know that. If we're going by anecdotal evidence, none of the people who I watch the show with (or I know they watch the show) knew who Meryn Trant was, except generally a Lannister man because of his armor. Even after Arya reminded him (and the audience), it got completely over their heads (do you really expect most people —that is, "audiences", as you call them—to remember the name Syrio Forel? Come on.) I thought as you did, that it may be overkill or at least unnecessary... then I saw that most people's reaction was "yeah, she got that pedophile!", with no other context. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 20:48, September 15, 2015 (UTC) 1 - Yeah I took some parts out just now that was a bit much. 2 - The reaction of the audience is irrelevant. Meryn Trant was a prominent enough recurring character that they should recall who he is and what he did, without the need to somehow invent other stuff to be angry at him about (beating with a stick, seriously?) -- or, the writers are at fault for not bringing it up prominently enough (but the fact is they DID have Arya mention "he killed Syrio and betrayed my father") -- moreover, this is what the "previously on Game of Thrones" intro is for. People should remember stuff across more than one TV season. Or, at most, have a few gentle reminders from the script (which they did include and which were sufficient on their own). I mean, by that logic, Ramsay needed to rape Sansa in Season 5, because people forgot that back in Season 3 he tortured Theon and actually burned Winterfell. No, they don't need to invent scenes of violence against women specifically, to "remind" people that characters are villains. Joffrey killed Ned Stark - what other reminders do we need? And if the viewers are morons...they can leave. But that's just my private view. Publicly yeah I just re-edited the section, even I thought it was a bit much for actual article content.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 22:24, September 15, 2015 (UTC) Well your private view is certainly telling. Most people have other things to think about, other than tertiary Game of Thrones characters. They have, huh, a life. They aren't morons, and they shouldn't leave just because they don't meet your absurd standards. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 22:26, September 15, 2015 (UTC) Well okay. Are you satisfied with the most current version of the Meryn Trant subsection?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 01:27, September 17, 2015 (UTC) Not really, but you cut out the most outrageous parts. You keep highlighting the parts you want to hammer home, which is not how this kind of writing works at all... Basically I'd turn this: : What the books did not include, however, was an apparently random scene of Raff''brutally beating child prostitutes with a stick'' the way that Meryn does in this episode - apparently to test their pain tolerance when he was selecting them (or for outright sadism, it is unclear). This aspect of the scene was entirely an invention of the TV series, as if emphasizing that Meryn is a villain, even though in his death scene itself Arya cries out that she is killing him because he betrayed her father and killed Syrio Forel. Into this: : However, Raff in the books didn't brutally harm child prostitutes the way that Meryn does in this episode. This aspect of the scene was apparently invented to emphasize that Meryn is a villain, going beyond Arya's explanation that she is killing him because he betrayed her father and killed Syrio Forel. That's my suggestion. Cutting out the appeals to emotion in the language, the uncertain hypotheses (if you can't be sure of Meryn's reasons, why mention them at all? Also, can't he be doing both things at the same time; don't you have to be a sadist in order to do what he's doing, even if it's for the purpose of testing their tolerance? That whole sentence is unnecesary), and basically just informing the reader of the differences without making a judgement of your own. —--ArticXiongmao (talk) 02:04, September 17, 2015 (UTC) Okay: I copied the end part of what you put, reworded the middle, and in the first part I took out the italics. How's the new version?--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:39, September 17, 2015 (UTC) Sounds good to me, personally. —ArticXiongmao (talk) 03:00, September 17, 2015 (UTC) Great. Thanks for your feedback, I want to be sensitive with this one.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 03:03, September 17, 2015 (UTC) Rapist Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the actual only time a character used the word "rapist" was when Stannis was referring to the Night's Watch members, shortly after he corrected the use of "less" to "fewer" (for a second time). We all know how much of a Grammar Nazi Stannis can be, so I don't think this is a coincidence, and the grammatically correct term canonically is "rapist". Not that the entire article should be changed to reflect this, since "raper" is a common enough term, but "rapist" seems to be correct in the universe, and it certainly wasn't ad-libbed by the actor, as the article states. 16:47, February 9, 2016 (UTC) Stannis isn't a real person, he's a character in a TV show, written by scriptwriters and then performed by an actor. Either the writers or the actors just messed up the line, but they ran with it due to being a good filming take. Direct comparison is that the term "Birthday" doesn't exist in Westeros: they call it a "Nameday" (babies get named the day they're born). Both Bronn and Robb Stark have been heard saying "birthday" - but this is assumed to be a non-canonical filming accident, not something occurring "in universe". I recall that Olenna used the term once too, I think when talking to the High Sparrow. It doesn't matter which character said "rapist" or "birthday" - be it Stannis or Bronn or Hodor. It's a production mistake, by the people writing and acting "Stannis" the fictional character. Also...if the basis you're using is the education level of a character, Tyrion himself consistently uses the term "rapers" (including in the page quotes). --The Dragon Demands (talk) 17:22, February 9, 2016 (UTC) It's far more competent to assume the terms can be used interchangeably versus the writers not paying attention to their own story. I'd guess both terms coexist as to let the viewers instinctively familiarize with what's being talked about. In the very least the article should recognize that any ad-libs or production errors are labeled as such by fan speculation and are not firm law, and if not, whatever, the show speaks for itself just fine. 18:02, February 9, 2016 (UTC) ..."competent"? When actors said "birthday" we didn't assume "birthday" was now an interchangeable term with "nameday" in the TV continuity (because it isn't in the TV continuity) -- we assume it's an error, because throughout the massive novel series, "rapist" is never used (unless I am mistaken), it's not a term in their universe. If a microphone appears in a shot, we don't assume there's a "Microphone creature" in the TV continuity - we rationally observe this is a production error. The show doesn't "speak for itself" - they never admit to such mistakes. For example, in the Season 1 finale, in one scene nine Kingsguard appear in the throneroom scene, even though there are never more than seven at a time, and two weren't in the capital at the time, so there should only be five. Do we "wait for the TV show to explain this and speak for itself?" by assuming there were really nine Kingsguard in-universe in that scene? No, it's clearly a production error, and we openly point it out as such.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:17, February 9, 2016 (UTC) Then it should be mentioned that the basis of this assumption originates from book knowledge, letting people pick apart and decide for themselves what they feel is canon and what isn't, because it's show information against book information, the latter of which has never been relevant. That makes it conjecture at most and should be mentioned as such. I have to wonder, does that mean you assume everything not mentioned or specified in the show is still in the background for you just because it was in the books unless it's contradicted by the show itself? If you have any official word to support this other than your own fancies please direct me there because I'm more than open to hear it. 18:43, February 9, 2016 (UTC) People are not free to believe in the Microphone Monster when a microphone accidentally appears in a shot. Unless we learn that this was an intentional change by the writers, it's assumed to just be a mistake. Things only become "real" when the writers intend them. For example, the writers self-consciously omitted Jaehaerys II from the TV continuity. But this isn't something like "assuming book characters exist that don't", it's a matter of how they talk. --The Dragon Demands (talk) 18:47, February 9, 2016 (UTC) Seeking to meet you halfway on this, I asked one of the other head Admins to weigh in on this, when he gets back to the wiki. I will defer to his judgement.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 19:02, February 9, 2016 (UTC) Nah don't worry about it, I'm gonna withdraw from this conversation, the topic is too intricate, I don't know the relationship between the show and the books well enough to make an educated guess. But the possibility still remains that this could be an intended show contradiction. 19:45, February 9, 2016 (UTC) Minor mistake "Robert Baratheon was betrayed to Eddard Stark's sister Lyanna Stark" Someone might wanna fix that. SharkyBytesz (talk) 09:06, May 26, 2016 (UTC) Inaccuracy in a section In the paragraph that details Joffrey expressing his desire to rape Sansa after her wedding night in season 3, the paragraph claims "This exchange didn't happen in the novels, though it is not that out of keeping with Joffrey's character (publicly making absurdly sadistic threats, ignorant that it makes everyone realize how crazy he is) - also, Joffrey and Sansa in the TV series continuity are simply older than their book counterparts (Sansa is two years older, Joffrey is four years older). Thus the 14 year old Joffrey in the novels (corresponding to this point in the story) doesn't seem to really know what sex is, while the 18-year-old Joffrey in Season 3 would probably be intellectually aware of what sex is (though he isn't physically interested in it), so it is not unfitting that TV-Joffrey would make a sexualized threat if he thought it would frighten Sansa for his sadistic amusement." Joffrey actually does say something similar in A Storm of Swords while he's dancing with Sansa on the banquet after her wedding. He tells her that in spite of the fact that she has to marry his 'hideous uncle' or something along those lines, she will still have him Joffrey. Sansa responds with something along the lines of "But you're marrying Margaery" and Joffrey shrugs it off talking about how kings have bastards all the time. So this is an inaccuracy in the article that can't be edited since it's protected. EDIT: Now that I recall, Joffrey also quips about showing Tyrion "how it's done" with Sansa after he's done with Margaery on his own wedding night --Mandon (talk) 18:18, May 17, 2019 (UTC)